Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


Harbhajan Singh v. Lachhman Singh & Ors. - CR-2781-2005 [2006] RD-P&H 6637 (7 September 2006)

CR No 2781 of 2005 1


Civil Revision No.2781 of 2005

Date of Decision: 14.09.2006

Harbhajan Singh ...Petitioner


Lachhman Singh & Ors. ...Respondents

CORAM Hon'ble Mr.Justice Vinod K.Sharma
Present: Mr.Raksh Nagpal, Advocate,

for the petitioner.

Mr.G.S.Punia, Advocate,

for respondent No.2.

Vinod K.Sharma, J. (Oral)

Present revision petition has been filed against the order passed by the learned Trial Court withdrawing the police help granted to him earlier in view of the order passed by this Court where such relief was declined.

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that there is an injunction order against the respondents which is being violated and therefore, there was no occasion for the court to have withdrawn the order of granting police help for implementation of the injunction order as it was in exercise of inherent powers conferred under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the order passed by the court was in consonance with the order passed by CR No 2781 of 2005 2

this Court in CR No.930 of 2003 wherein the petitioner was permitted to take the plea in the execution. However, in spite of specific order having been passed in favour of the petitioner he himself chose to file another application in this Court in appeal wherein the following order was passed on 12.1.2004:

" Counsel for the applicant states that vide order dated 18.2.2003 the plaintiff-respondents were given the right to ingress and eagress for the purpose of reaching their land. It is submitted by the learned counsel that the appellant is causing hindrance in using the land in dispute as a passage.

After hearing the learned counsel for the respondents, it is ordered that the appellant shall not cause any hindrance in the way of the respondents to sue the land in dispute as a passage. In case the orders are not followed,the appellant shall be liable for contempt of the orders of this Court.

Application disposed of accordingly."

In view of this order, the petitioner has moved the court for contempt proceedings which have been adjourned and ordered to be heard with the main appeal. In the Regular Second Appeal the similar prayer of the petitioner has been declined.

In view of this, there is no error in exercise of jurisdiction by the court.


(Vinod K.Sharma)

14.09.2006 Judge



Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites


dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.